Shower exploded and flooded whole house after builder removed and replaced

bertiebb_2

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You need to know the cause here.  It’s almost certain the shower refit was the decisive factor, but it might not have been the cause.  Until you’ve worked out which part of the system has failed, you can’t pin the blame on the plumber.

Hmm yes I agree a part may have failed that was something else but surely it was all ok until he refitted it - hes got to take some responsibility? If he said look that shower needs to go then its my fault but he didn't surely he should have checked it all.

Aylesbury_Duck

bertiebb_2 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You need to know the cause here.  It’s almost certain the shower refit was the decisive factor, but it might not have been the cause.  Until you’ve worked out which part of the system has failed, you can’t pin the blame on the plumber.

Hmm yes I agree a part may have failed that was something else but surely it was all ok until he refitted it - hes got to take some responsibility? If he said look that shower needs to go then its my fault but he didn't surely he should have checked it all.

Possibly, and probably likely, but not certainly.  If the case is traced to a weak join or a corroded pipe that wasn't reasonably accessible or visible, and it was the act of depressurising and repressurising the system when the shower was removed and refitted that finally caused it to fail, that's not the plumber's fault.

It's not unlike the situation where you take your car to an MOT test and a brake line ruptures under testing conditions, or a cambelt snaps when the engine is revved hard for the emissions test.  You might argue the garage broke it, but the reasonable counterargument is that the brakes were likely to fail in the event of a hard stop, or the belt or tensioners were about to fail, anyway.

So no, he hasn't got to take any responsibility yet.

born_again

bertiebb_2 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You need to know the cause here.  It’s almost certain the shower refit was the decisive factor, but it might not have been the cause.  Until you’ve worked out which part of the system has failed, you can’t pin the blame on the plumber.

Hmm yes I agree a part may have failed that was something else but surely it was all ok until he refitted it - hes got to take some responsibility? If he said look that shower needs to go then its my fault but he didn't surely he should have checked it all.

I think that you need to find out exactly where the issue was, before blame can be apportioned. So if it was the bit he removed & replaced, that blew off, fair to say it is his fault. Anything else then you really can't blame them.

But that be some pressure you cold water is running at.

Lorian

What actually burst or failed. Without knowing that you'll struggle to pin anything down. 

photome

What did the home emergency guys say 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

bertiebb_2 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

bertiebb_2 said:

Is it fair that he should be, at least, paying my excess here?

Happy to be corrected but my understanding is if the insurance co find the plumber is at fault he may be on the hook for the insurance co's costs.

Is this a sole trader or a LTD?

sole trader - so far all I've had from builder is I didn't break it, all I did was remove it and refit its not my fault.

Thanks OP

All contracts for services have the implied term that the service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill.

Where that doesn't occur (i.e the contract is breached) you may request a repeat performance and then a price reduction under consumer rights or can simply seek damages. 

Either way burden of proof lies with yourself I believe so typically it's have an expert have a look and put something on paper to show on the balance of probability reasonable care and skill wasn't exercised. 

You'd be looking at letter before action and small claims if you can't come to an agreement with the plumber

@DullGreyGuy might advise whether you or your insurer will be able to attempt to claim any excess back via the plumber's insurance (assuming he has some). 

pinkshoes

bertiebb_2 said:

Know what you mean but his attitude at the moment is awful - not my problem.
All I know is he disconnected it all and reconnected it. Hes saying not his fault for the fittings behind the wall etc.

It was a big leak could hear it from outside on the driveway when we got home. The water was spurting out from the shower.

Got home emergency coming out this am so we'll see what they find.

If the home emergency (expert plumber???) can show that the removal and refitting of the shower was at fault for the leak then your insurance company can go after the plumber to pay. 

I'd make sure you get it in writing from an expert stating what caused the leak. 

The fact that you called him back as it was leaking means that as an expert he should have investigated and not turned the water back on until it was properly fixed.

Lorian

We're these replacement tiles, there were tiles under the shower previously?

Was it a Mira or something other make?

DullGreyGuy

Given you say it was a new shower I'm a little surprised that you are only talking to the builder and not the plumber who put the shower in. Both are expected to have exercised reasonable skill and whilst I'm no plumbing expert for new piping to have exploded sounds more like a problem with the plumbing rather than detaching/reattaching the final piece. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
You'd be looking at letter before action and small claims if you can't come to an agreement with the plumber 

DullGreyGuy might advise whether you or your insurer will be able to attempt to claim any excess back via the plumber's insurance (assuming he has some). 

In principle @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is correct however you have to be careful in this. When your insurance company settles your claim you subrogate your right of recovery to them so they can sue the third party in your place but legally it's still you -v- the other party. 

As a consequence there is the issue of double jeopardy, a person cannot be sued twice for the same incident by the same party. If you were to sue them for your excess you would then legally block your insurers from suing them for their outlay which in principle would be a breach of contract and in most cases enable them to sue you for their outlay instead. 

If you decided to go down the path of pursuing the builder for your excess you need to keep your insurers in the loop. The may decide they dont want to fund litigation as the prospects of success aren't high enough but require you to sue for the whole amount if you decide to litigate. Alternatively if the builder's insurance is involved they may come to an agreement to keep costs out of the legal proceedings to ensure it stays in Small Track but to honour the court order whatever it may be. 

As a slight side note, unlike Motor or Employers Liability insurance you have no right to deal with the Public Liability insurer directly. It's ultimately there to protect the builder and it's their choice if they involve them or deal with it personally. With the two statuary classes of insurance the insurer is obliged to step in when there is a court order against their insured. 

Aylesbury_Duck

DullGreyGuy said:

Given you say it was a new shower I'm a little surprised that you are only talking to the builder and not the plumber who put the shower in. Both are expected to have exercised reasonable skill and whilst I'm no plumbing expert for new piping to have exploded sounds more like a problem with the plumbing rather than detaching/reattaching the final piece. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
You'd be looking at letter before action and small claims if you can't come to an agreement with the plumber 

DullGreyGuy might advise whether you or your insurer will be able to attempt to claim any excess back via the plumber's insurance (assuming he has some). 

In principle @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is correct however you have to be careful in this. When your insurance company settles your claim you subrogate your right of recovery to them so they can sue the third party in your place but legally it's still you -v- the other party. 

As a consequence there is the issue of double jeopardy, a person cannot be sued twice for the same incident by the same party. If you were to sue them for your excess you would then legally block your insurers from suing them for their outlay which in principle would be a breach of contract and in most cases enable them to sue you for their outlay instead. 

If you decided to go down the path of pursuing the builder for your excess you need to keep your insurers in the loop. The may decide they dont want to fund litigation as the prospects of success aren't high enough but require you to sue for the whole amount if you decide to litigate. Alternatively if the builder's insurance is involved they may come to an agreement to keep costs out of the legal proceedings to ensure it stays in Small Track but to honour the court order whatever it may be. 

As a slight side note, unlike Motor or Employers Liability insurance you have no right to deal with the Public Liability insurer directly. It's ultimately there to protect the builder and it's their choice if they involve them or deal with it personally. With the two statuary classes of insurance the insurer is obliged to step in when there is a court order against their insured. 

It's not a new shower.  A builder removed the existing shower, did some tiling, then put the shower back.